- From: RDF Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:58:34 +0000
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
RDF-ISSUE-68 (rdf-concepts-redundancy): Informative section “RDF Concepts” in rdf-concepts spec is redundant http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/68 Raised by: Richard Cyganiak On product: RDF Concepts contains an informative section “RDF Concepts”: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-Concepts This section is quite redundant with later normative sections: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#datatypes-1 http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-Graph-syntax Both sections describe the RDF data model in detail. The informative section is shorter (~3 pages vs. ~7 normative pages), and it's written in somewhat more accessible (and less precise) language. So it can be seen as a gentler introduction to the RDF data model. On the other hand, this organization has quite a few downsides: - spec is three pages longer - many things are said twice in a very similar way - readers are confused when looking things up - there are two subsections named “Datatypes” - there is a subsection “Literals” and another one “RDF Literals” - there is a subsection “Graph Data Model” and another one “RDF Graphs” In summary, I don't think that the informative section pulls its weight, and I think removing it would yield a more usable spec. There are a few specific paragraphs and items in the informative section that might be worth keeping and folding into the normative sections as informative examples/notes.
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 14:58:39 UTC